The Portland daily press., 1887-07-04
BURNS IN COURT.
May intoxicating Liquors be Sold In
Original Packages7
The Attorney cens--eI Fighting for a
Negative Answer.
Burns Fined s 90, but Appeals to the
Superior Court.

AUGUSTA, Me-, July 2.-Michael Burns, of
this city, whose imported liquors were seized
last Tuesday, came before the Municipal
Court this morning, his counsel being Hon.
II. M. Heath and j. II. Potter, Esq. At
torney General 0rville d. Baker appeared
for the government.
The first witness was examined by Mr..
Heath, counsel for the respondent, as to the
contents of the cases seized. He said he had
no knowledge affirmatively of their contents,
but had reason to believe they were filed
with rum and whiskey. There were fifty-six
cases of rum and 10 of whiskey. The coun-
tive to the hiding place of the liquors, but
the court instructed the witness that he need
not answer
Michael Burns was the second and last
witness called He had taken 200 cases in
all from the Portland custom house,of which
131 had been sold from the shop, and the re-
mainder seized. The liquors were purchased
of Edward & John Burke, Liverpool Eng
land. He had purchased the liquors in his
own name, entering them at Boston, and
afterwards transporting them to the Port
land custom house in bonded cars, where
they were properly stamped E. r. Pierce
appraising them. He had no knowledge Of
the contents, having never seen the inside of
case. His card which he sent out to his
customers read as follows:
NJ. BURNS,
Importer, Augusta, Me.
Fine old Irish whiskey and Jamaica rum. sold
in the original packages. Orders by mall VIII re-
ceiye prompt attention.
j. Ii. Potter, Esq, addressed the court in
behalf of the respondent. He held that
Burns never intended and never did sell the
liquors other than in the original packages,
and there is no evidence that he ever did
break package. The only question at issue
was whether Burns could legally sell the
whiskey and rum in unbroken packages. The
attorney held that by all decisions and pre-
cedents the importer had been allowed to sell
the liquors freely as long as he did not break
the cases. He cited numerous law cases in
support of his position, notably 49 Maine
Reports. page 2S5 State VS.. Robinson. The
dictum of this decision is that under the
laws of the United States Intoxicating
liquors imported may be sold by the import,
err in the original packages without regard
to the State law. He also referred to State
vs.. Blackwell, 65, page 556, which he said i'm
piled that importers could legally sell his
goods. State VS.. Chandler. 60, page 525 was
noticed. This, it was held, was similar to
the burns case.
Mr.. Heath spoke briefly and gave a de-
scription of the Chandler case. The liquor
had been shipped by Noah Chandler of
Aroostook to customer in Fairfield. While
in the latter place at the express office it was
seized by the authorities. The case went to
the Supreme Court, where decision was
rendered, ordering the return of the liquors
within As hours. Hon. l.. Powers had been
counsel for the defendant in this case. Mr..
Powers had also been successful in cases in
volving similar question.
Attorney General Baker spoke for the
government. He believed the prohibitory
law had been passed for an honest purpose
by the legislature Of Maine If the law could
| be evaded by a scheme like Mr.. Purns then
the prohibitory law would become a laugh
ing stock and byword. The government Is
honest in its effort to break up the evil OF
the traffic in intoxicating liquors. The cases
cited by the opposing counsel he did not re-
gard as involving the point at issue in this
case, and argued that the judge should hold
the respondent so that the question could be
thoroughly tested.
Judge Andrews rendered pro .f0yrnd
Judgment. fining Burns, 500. Burns ap-
pealed. The case goes to the Superior Court
and will be tried before Judge Waterhouse.